Me 163 tailless design

[Val. Pylypenko]

Dear Grzesio,

Thanks very much for your rapid and comprehensive reply to my question which I am (due to my embarrassing ignorance of aeronautical terminology) still attempting to digest - perhaps I should'nt have selected this particular topic for my talk, although now I'm committed!

I'll understand fully if you decline to assist me any further given your lengthy initial response but I am hoping you could possibly clarify a few things for me:

1. Most texts I've read simply refer to the 163 design as "taillesss", i.e. no horizontal elevators. How does this single feature (assuming the term doesn't include other features) improve performance? Was the weight saving c.f. a traditional tail such as to allow a significantly lighter airframe (and thus shorter fuselage)?
2. Am I correct in understanding that the swept-wing was the option selected to stabilize the tailless a/c in flight?
3. Finally, re your final comment "generally a well designed tailless aircraft (such as the Komet) are light, powerful and stable in flight", in relation to "powerful", I assume that as we are discussing airframe alone, you are referring to the tailless a/c tendency to climb when flying at high speed? If I'm wrong, beside the lighter airframe, why is this design generally more powerful than traditional designs?

Hope you can assist......and will understand if you choose otherwise

Regards

Val. Pylypenko (non-technical Luftwaffe buff)